From: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>,
Yan-Hsuan Chuang <tony0620emma@gmail.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>,
Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rtw88: Fix out-of-bounds write
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 15:33:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210717133343.GA2009@titan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YPG/8F7yYLm3vAlG@kroah.com>
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 07:20:48PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 05:53:11PM +0200, Len Baker wrote:
> > In the rtw_pci_init_rx_ring function the "if (len > TRX_BD_IDX_MASK)"
> > statement guarantees that len is less than or equal to GENMASK(11, 0) or
> > in other words that len is less than or equal to 4095. However the
> > rx_ring->buf has a size of RTK_MAX_RX_DESC_NUM (defined as 512). This
> > way it is possible an out-of-bounds write in the for statement due to
> > the i variable can exceed the rx_ring->buff size.
> >
> > However, this overflow never happens due to the rtw_pci_init_rx_ring is
> > only ever called with a fixed constant of RTK_MAX_RX_DESC_NUM. But it is
> > better to be defensive in this case and add a new check to avoid
> > overflows if this function is called in a future with a value greater
> > than 512.
>
> If this can never happen, then no, this is not needed.
Then, if this can never happen, the current check would not be necessary
either.
> Why would you check twice for the same thing?
Ok, it makes no sense to double check the "len" variable twice. So, I
propose to modify the current check as follows:
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c
index e7d17ab8f113..0fd140523868 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c
@@ -268,8 +268,8 @@ static int rtw_pci_init_rx_ring(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,
int i, allocated;
int ret = 0;
- if (len > TRX_BD_IDX_MASK) {
- rtw_err(rtwdev, "len %d exceeds maximum RX entries\n", len);
+ if (len > ARRAY_SIZE(rx_ring->buf)) {
+ rtw_err(rtwdev, "len %d exceeds maximum RX ring buffer\n", len);
return -EINVAL;
}
This way the overflow can never happen with the current call to
rtw_pci_init_rx_ring function or with a future call with a "len" parameter
greater than 512. What do you think?
If there are no objections I will send a v3 for review.
Another question: If this can never happen should I include the "Fixes" tag,
"Addresses-Coverity-ID" tag and Cc to stable?
Thanks,
Len
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-17 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-16 15:53 [PATCH v2] rtw88: Fix out-of-bounds write Len Baker
2021-07-16 16:58 ` Brian Norris
2021-07-16 17:20 ` Greg KH
2021-07-17 13:33 ` Len Baker [this message]
2021-07-17 17:33 ` Greg KH
2021-07-18 7:53 ` Len Baker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210717133343.GA2009@titan \
--to=len.baker@gmx.com \
--cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pkshih@realtek.com \
--cc=sgruszka@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tony0620emma@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).